Re: [yam] [Fwd: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03]

Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Thu, 04 March 2010 08:05 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD2B228C16D for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 00:05:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.217, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nPkdkX2KL3Pg for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 00:05:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4753028C169 for <yam@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 00:05:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [169.223.34.240] (240.34.dhcp.conference.apricot.net [169.223.34.240]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o2485Nia000884 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <yam@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 00:05:32 -0800
Message-ID: <4B8F69BF.1010502@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:05:19 +0800
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: yam@ietf.org
References: <4B8E515A.6060608@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20100303221310.0a1f0c70@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20100303221310.0a1f0c70@resistor.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/10510/Wed Mar 3 20:35:54 2010 on sbh17.songbird.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:05:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [yam] [Fwd: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03]
X-BeenThere: yam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: Yet Another Mail working group discussion list <yam.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam>
List-Post: <mailto:yam@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:05:32 -0000

On 3/4/2010 2:18 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> Alexey forwarded the Secdir review to the list (
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00366.html ). The
> Secdir reviewer clarified his comments (
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00368.html ).


Since Steve Kent is sitting a few feet away from me, here in Kuala Lumpur, I 
should probably chat with him about this...

The problem is that I'm not sure what to discuss.  His followup note does 
indicate that he has a reasonable and narrow set of concerns.  The real problem 
is that I am not sure what boundaries we -- yam -- have for these kinds of changes.

One argument is that he is suggesting non-normative clarifications.  From that 
standpoint, that seems reasonable to include for yam-related work.

A different argument is that there is, nonetheless, some actual substance to the 
changes and that that is /not/ within scope for yam.

How does the wg feel about this?

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net